For those who want to know how much a rally can make a difference, read this (just rediscovered by me) parliamentary account of how the Live Music Rally in Adelaide on July 14 2001 drew focus on the need to act in preventing the demise of local live music.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 10 July 2002
LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS)
AMENDMENT BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.
(Continued from 13 May. Page 138.)
Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg): I rise to support the bill, subject
to one matter—
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:
Ms CHAPMAN: This is a terrible trend, isn’t it? Listen
to this: subject to one matter, which I will address and on
which I will seek some explanation—and which I am sure
will be readily provided. Save and except for the exclusion
of the proposed variation of the review and appeal process,
the bill repeats the provisions of the Liquor Licensing
(Review Appeals and Noise Complaints) Amendment Bill
2001 with the incorporation of a number of amendments
proposed by the Hon. Angus Redford.
The history of this legislative reform is well and comprehensively recorded in the debates of members in the other
place, and I do not propose to traverse them in detail. Suffice
to say that the foresight and passion for the live music
industry’s survival and advancement by the Hon. Diana
Laidlaw will always be a shining example of the commitment
to cause in this parliament.
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It was Angus Redford actually.
Ms CHAPMAN: Diana Laidlaw.
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:
Ms CHAPMAN: I recall the election campaign of 1993—
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CHAPMAN: —when she opened early with her
proposals for young musicians, and she has not abated in her
actions to give them a future. Perhaps the honourable
member’s responsibilities in the area of planning have given
her a particular capacity and understanding of the conflicting
interests of parties and the path to resolution, which is the
subject of this bill.
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:
Ms CHAPMAN: The working group chaired by Angus
agreed and recorded 10 basic principles fundamental to its
consideration of options but also developed a set of amendments to enhance the objectives of this bill. I note that those
amendments where relevant to the Liquor Licensing Act have
now been incorporated in this bill.
I have read the debates with interest and delight. They
span from July to October 2001 and I have observed that,
although the Hon. Sandra Kanck held out with her amendments almost until the bitter end, the spirit of compromise
Wednesday 10 July 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
ultimately prevailed and the bill presented for consideration
now reflects that. I also note the significant contribution made
to this progress being made by the Australian Hotels Association. It, too, has presented an initial position and a letter that
each member has now received confirms its willingness to
resolve the difficult matter in the spirit of compromise. The
letter dated 29 May 2002 and signed by Mr John Lewis,
General Manager, states:
The Australian Hotels Association (SA) is pleased to support the
Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2002 which we
believe is an important step forward in securing the future of the live
music industry for the South Australian community.
The AHA appreciates the level of support from all parties which
has been shown on this issue, allowing a sensible and balanced
approach which will meet the needs of the live music industry
without disadvantaging local residents with legitimate concerns. We
would especially like to acknowledge the support of the previous
government which set up the Live Music Working Group, the current
government which has moved quickly to adopt the recommendations, and the Australian Democrats which has long championed the
cause of live music.
The result is an historic piece of legislation which no doubt will
be adopted by other jurisdictions grappling with similar issues. We
would like to thank the parliament for its support on this issue and
we look forward to the passing of the bill in both houses of
parliament.
For the record, that correspondence has been forwarded to a
number of members of parliament. Personally, I say that I
was surprised to see a move to include ‘the live music
industry’ in the objects of the act. The passing of this bill will
enshrine this industry as one of only three examples recorded
therein, joining tourism and hospitality as an associated
industry to the liquor industry. I expect they will be pleased—
as they should be—and I have no doubt they will be the envy
of others. It is a clear reflection of the cross-sectional support
this industry now enjoys. Doubtless, the public support
demonstrated during the rally on 14 July 2001 has been
acknowledged in this debate, and I congratulate those
participating, as their views have surely been heard.
Before addressing the matter of the addition to the original
amendment now incorporated in the bill, I refer to the
Attorney-General’s comments in respect of minor technical
amendments, namely clause 5 of the bill to amend section 61
of the principal act and clause 6 of the bill to amend section
77 of the principal act. Of course, these arise out of the
decision of Liquorland vs Hurley, which was handed down
in the Supreme Court on 18 July 2001.
I welcome those amendments and I express my appreciation that the Supreme Court has brought this to the attention
of the parliament for immediate action. Sometimes the
scrutiny of the judiciary, when a case comes before them,
does highlight the deficiency in the drafting and it is important that this is remedied as soon as practicable. The legislation is not just for future litigants but to ensure that it is a
clear guide to the current relevant parties in their adherence
and their application.
I now wish to specifically refer to clause 7(b)(i) of the bill.
The amendment proposed by the Hon. Angus Redford
provided that in hearing or determining a complaint the
commissioner or court must take into account ‘the period of
time’. The bill adds the words, preceding the above:
..therelevanthistoryofthelicensedpremisesinrelationtoother
premises in the vicinity and, in particular...
I seek an explanation from the Attorney-General for the
addition, as he does not mention it in his second reading
explanation. If he can clarify this, we may not need to refer
to it in committee. ‘Relevant history’ is not defined in the
principal act or this bill, and this particular subclause of the
bill now proposes to relegate the period of time of a certain
activity or its change as only one—albeit that it has the status
of ‘in particular’. In relation to what other history is relevant—and I raise the question as to whether that should be
defined—I note that this ‘relevant history’ is placed in the
context only in its relationship to other premises in the
vicinity. ‘Premises’ is defined in the principal act as ‘in a
public convenience.’ I would just mention that, in relation to
section 4 of the principal act, the definition of premises
includes:
(a) land
(b) any building or structure on land
(c) a public convenience
(d) a part of premises
The principal act defines ‘public convenience’ as follows:
. . . means an aeroplane, vessel, bus, train, tram or other vehicle
used for public transport or available for hire by members of the
public,butdoesnotincludeaconveyancehiredonaself-drivebasis
if all passengers (if any) are to be transported free of charge or other
consideration.
Having read those definitions, I simply indicate that the mind
boggles somewhat at how a court is expected to take this into
account as one of the factors it must consider under the bill.
As an example, I refer to a seaside hotelier and a complainant
against activity in that hotel having to identify every premises
including any ship regularly passing by that offers live
entertainment. I raise that because that is what the definitions
say and there is no attempt to identify that in the bill. I just
seek some clarification of that.
If it is intended to elevate the significance and highlight
the importance of live music in a licensed premises being the
subject of a complaint, where other neighbouring hotels no
longer offer this entertainment, then I suggest it should do so.
That may aid the cause but, where there has been a reverse
trend in a particular area—that is, of live music in other
venues—it could work against the retention of or place
greater restriction on the subject premises. I seek some
clarification on the definition issue so that we can be quite
clear on that. I otherwise indicate my support for the bill and
look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General.
The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Minister for Local
Government): I rise to support the bill and to make some
observations of a planning nature. As a result of the residential building boom in the 1990s and the rediscovery and
subsequent promotion of inner-city living and cafe lifestyles,
there has been this pressure on legitimate business activities,
especially in the hospitality industry and the mischief we seek
to remedy. A growing trend of residents moving into this
these areas—although in full knowledge of a hotel, cafe or
restaurant next-door—has increased complaints about noise
levels. This has effectively contributed to the closure of a
number of venues or at least severely curtailing their
activities. This issue has recently become more critical with
a number of the state’s leading suburban live music venues
either considering or in some cases actually stopping live
performances as a direct result of residents’ complaints. The
last live music gig was played at the Bridgewater Inn on
23 June 2001. The Bridgewater Inn is not alone. Some of
significant pressure: they include the Stag, Governor
Hindmarsh, Crown and Anchor, Kensington, Wheatsheaf,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Wednesday 10 July 2002
In
link to the South Australian music industry and provide a
place for musicians to graduate from garages to live gigs and
then often to a career in the music industry. To name just a
few, some of the band, singers and musicians who have been
discovered or have honed their talents in
include: Cold Chisel and Jimmy Barnes; the Angels; the
Twilights; the Masters Apprentices; Greg Champion; Glen
Shorrock; Becky Cole and the legendary late Bon Scott of
ACDC.
More recently, a young South Australian woman, Sia
Furler, left
writer, and to enjoy living in
very successful album released in the
now been released in
it is called ‘Sia: healing is difficult’. She is described as a
‘. . . singer of voluminous talent. Her vocals are totally unique
and leave you gasping for more after just one listen. Pure
quality music; maximum respect’. Elements of this could be
regarded as racy, and for some of the older members opposite
like the member for Stuart I would issue a word of caution in
case blood pressure levels rise to malignant levels. It is a
great CD, and I would recommend that anybody who has not
listened to it should do so.
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I can assure the
member for Stuart it is very different from Slim Dusty.
Support of pubs like the Governor Hindmarsh, Stag and
Austral were essential to Sia’s developing her career. She
could not have moved forward without the pub gigs, which
are so important as a lifeline for young musicians. Such is the
relationship between musicians and those venues that they
often support their rise to success. Sia continues to provide
entertainment in those venues when she comes back from
become even bigger news here, and she is an
There is a lot to support about this industry, and we should
be getting behind young people who make it their lifestyle
and their job.
There is much speculation among young people that
here. It is little wonder that those sorts of attitudes occur
when we do face these threats of losing our live music
industry. We do not want to lose those fresh ideas or
creativity, and we want to provide ways in which we can
support our young people. The arts are not just about theatre,
and jobs are not just about car plants. The future of South
Members have noted the bipartisan way in which this issue
is being dealt with, and I note the work of the Live Music
Group, which consisted of representatives of the state
division of the AHA, the Property Council, local government,
the Environment Protection Agency, Planning SA, SA Police
and the Liquor and Gaming Commission, all of whom made
important contributions to bringing about this legislation.
The nature of hotels means that noise will always be
associated with businesses, and residents need to be aware of
and acknowledge this when they are deciding to take up
residence in close proximity to a hotel. The Liquor Licensing
Act obviously states that noise levels cannot be offensive,
annoying, disturbing or inconvenient, but that means that,
even if a licensed premises meets its obligations under the
Environment Protection Act, it still may not have met its
obligations under the Liquor Licensing Act. If just one
resident considers a noise level to be unreasonable, even if
that is not backed by the EPA readings, under the previous
regime the decision would have been taken to curtail the
music at the venue. So, this legislation is important to remedy
that issue.
Our economy is not just about what we grow, build or
manufacture: it is centrally driven by the services we also
provide. Some 78 per cent of employment is found in the
services sector, and the entertainment industry is just one
component of that large and growing sector. The music
industry as part of that industry is the sixth largest export
industry in the nation. A substantial amount of employment
is taken up by young people in that sector, and members
would be aware that youth unemployment remains one of our
central public policy dilemmas. But this issue is not just about
jobs: it is about creating a space for people to enjoy themselves, enjoy each other’s company and listen to the talents
of the people who perform in these venues. Our government
believes that the measures contained in the bill provide a
sensible balance between the rights of residents and those
who want to listen to live music. I commend the bill to the
consideration of the house.
Ms CICCARELLO (
my comments. I agree with the comments made by the
Minister for Urban Planning and Development. We have
grappled with this issue in my community for many years.
Long before the move to urban living in the city we were
facing this issue in
changed, there was some conflict between residents and the
live music venues. We had a very unusual instance back in
the late 1980s, when the Norwood Hotel lodged an appeal
against a residential development that was happening on
Osmond Terrace. It was when the
of Art moved to
was to build five townhouses. Whilst the proprietors of the
Norwood Hotel thought that residential development on
Osmond Terrace would be eminently appropriate, they
wanted to put on the record for any people who might move
into the area in future years that the hotel had been operating
for many years and had a closing time of 4 a.m.
An honourable member: Do the Saturno brothers still
have that place?
Ms CICCARELLO: The Saturno brothers still have that
hotel, and the residential development did go ahead. The
Hotel, which is now Finn MacCool’s, is also operating
extremely well. It is very important that musicians of all ages
have opportunities to exhibit their talents and entertain people
from the community, so I think this bill is eminently sensible.
It has been far too long in coming, and it certainly would
have been very helpful in my electorate if we had had it much
sooner. I attended the rally that was held last year, and there
was enormous support from a wide cross-section of the
community, so I think this will be a very popular move.
I recently attended a youth forum in my electorate, and
one of the complaints that came from the young people (and
some were under age; some would not have been able to go
to pubs) was that there are very few places these days where
they can enjoy live music because of changes in society and
what people think is appropriate. I commend this bill and
look forward to more live music being available for all to
enjoy.
Wednesday 10 July 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite): I rise to support the
bill, as shadow minister for tourism and the arts. I seek to
make a few observations about how the bill will impact on
the tourism industry and the arts within the state, and provide
some personal perspectives on what I believe must be done
in addition to this bill. I will then conclude with a few general
remarks about the benefits of the bill and the challenges
ahead.
The essential problem here is that music and people must
coexist; that hotels that provide live music venues and
residents must coexist; and that
must have a life and a heart. People need to use a good deal
of commonsense. There needs to be a degree of peaceful
coexistence. In this respect, live music is not the only
example of such disputes and such dilemmas. Another
example is the issue of air traffic noise and airfields and
residents. It has been quite common in recent decades for
residents to establish homes around airfields that have been
there for a very long time and, after a period of time, having
moved into the area knowing that there was an airfield and
knowing that there would be disturbance, feel aggrieved at
the degree of air traffic noise that is going on and seek either
to limit the operations of the airport or to close down the
airport. In fact, there are some synergies with that dilemma
and this dilemma of live music. However, the live music
issue is much closer to the heart of the city of
is a much more complex issue in many respects.
The bill seeks to provide a mechanism for residents and
hotels providing live music to resolve their disputes amicably,
in a way which gets around the problems of first use and
which provides a fair go for both residents and those who
provide live music. Without this bill, and without an outcome,
many venues around the city of
simply face closure. Should this bill not pass, the result would
be that
many decades, would risk withering on the vine. But, of
course, to stop that from happening, far more needs to be
done than is provided for in this bill. In particular, if
is to remain a vibrant 21st century city, it must continue to
cater for the arts and entertainment and not simply for
residential and retail uses. If live music and hotel uses are
lost, the role and fabric of our city will be eroded. That will
have a very detrimental impact, not only on the quality of life
for all South Australians but also on businesses that hinge on
the entertainment and tourist industry.
These amendments to the Liquor Licensing Act go some
way to providing a resolution. But, of course, new noise
guidelines need to be provided through the EPA to provide
a suitable mechanism for residents and live music venues to
resolve their differences. Of course, other actions need to be
taken to ensure that buyers of residences are made aware of
the existence of live music venues before they purchase their
home. Therefore, when they purchased a home they would
know that a venue is operating in the precinct and can expect
to have that as part of their daily life.
As I mentioned earlier, a degree of commonsense and
reasonableness needs to be evident. People cannot move into
an area that is alongside a live music venue one week and
then decide the following week that they want the venue to
be closed. That is one of the problems this bill seeks to
overcome. Of course, there will be implications for local
councils, particularly in regard to their development plans and
planning amendment reports. They will need to embrace the
spirit of this bill and implement it. There will also be
implications for building codes. Other initiatives will
probably be needed in terms of the Summary Offences Act
1953 in regard to patron behaviour to ensure that not only
behaviour inside live music venues is dealt with but also the
behaviour around live music venues. This often results in
complaints from local residents and is not within the ambit,
responsibility or the ability of a hotelier to control.
A live music fund was suggested by the former government to be applied for various purposes: first, to assist venues
to undertake improvements that meet EPA noise levels;
secondly, to assist developers in residential development in
mixed-use zones with noise attenuation measures; and,
thirdly, to enhance the development of the South Australian
live music industry generally. It is one thing to provide
legislation but it is another thing to provide the money
required to make it a reality. That is why I was alarmed last
night when I heard from industry sources that an initiative of
the former Liberal government to establish a new live music
fund was at risk by this government and is likely to be axed
in the budget tomorrow.
The investment that the former government was to make
of $200 000 (an extra sum on top of current expenditure of
$400 000) through Arts SA was to provide for contemporary
music projects, such as the doubling of funding for the
recording assistance program of about $80 000 each year.
First, this was to give more musicians the assistance they
need to kick start their careers. Secondly, a state-wide live
music touring program was to be launched, incorporating
extra support for regional areas to present local musicians and
to provide mentorships and business skill workshops. Thirdly,
a music house was to develop and conduct industry training
courses and manage Music Business Adelaide as an event.
Fourthly, the South Australian Folk Federation was to be
assisted to relaunch the annual Folk Festival in the
Hills. Finally, the annual Frances Folk Gathering in the
South-East was to receive $10 000 to help train student
musicians in recognition of the ongoing support provided by
the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel.
I understand that that money is to be axed tomorrow
afternoon by the current government. I am very disappointed
to hear that. With this bill, the government has followed the
leadership of the previous government and sought to make
changes designed to achieve better co-existence between the
live music industry and hotels and the residents of South
to slice this $200 000 off the live music fund. I will be
delighted tomorrow afternoon if I am proven wrong and the
funding remains. But I suspect from very reliable sources that
I will be disappointed, and I see the minister assisting for the
arts leaving on that note. Perhaps he would like to spring to
his place and correct me and tell me that the funding will be
preserved, but I take from his departure that it is as good as
gone. Nevertheless, I hope that the hotels and the live music
providers of
afternoon.
In conclusion, and following on from my colleague the
member for Bragg, I indicate that, of course, we support this
bill. This measure will enhance tourism within the city of
be good for the arts community. It will be good for those
musicians and others who are involved in the provision of
live music, which is very much what
In saying that, I remind the house that the needs of young
people in this state are often needs that we ignore. We go
ahead, we create legislation, we take actions that we feel are
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Wednesday 10 July 2002
in the best interests of South Australians but, of course, as
you look around the chamber and consider the age of
members of parliament, you could be forgiven for expressing
concern that we may from time to time forget that
needs to be good fun for young people; and live music venues
are very much a part of that good fun. So, in supporting the
bill, I urge the government to look at the other issues which
I have raised and which were flagged late last year by my
colleagues in this house and the other place, and implement
them in concert with this bill.
In concluding, I would like to bring to the house’s
attention some comments made by my colleague the Hon.
Angus Redford in another place, whose terrific work in
preparing this legislation is to be commended. He said on 25
October:
I draw members’ attention to the fact that it is my strong view
that in 100 years we will not be judged by the political events of the
last week or the last fortnight; we will not be judged by the result of
the forthcoming federal election; and we will not be judged by the
results of inflation factors, employment levels or the sorts of things
that generally occupy us on a day-to-day basis. In 100 years we will
be judged by the product of our artists, authors, musicians and poets.
We judged the late 19th century and the early 20th century by the
likes of C.J. Dennis, Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson. In 100 years
our community will be judged by our musicians—their words and
music, their activities and their success—whether it be on an
international, national or local stage.
I think he is right, and I commend the bill to the house.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): The
origin of this bill is a decision of the Development Assessment Unit of the Charles Sturt Council. That council decided
to grant development permission to Mr Peter Jurkovic to
build a series of townhouses on
immediately behind the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel. The
Governor Hindmarsh Hotel is in my electorate, and for many
years it has been a venue for live music.
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed, it is a good pub and
a pub without pokies. Its licensees, Brian and Richard
townhouses, Mr Jurkovic, is also well known to me as his
sister lives next-door to me. The Charles Sturt Development
Assessment Unit granted permission for the erection of, I
think, seven townhouses immediately behind the Governor
Hindmarsh Hotel and next to the railway line to Woodville;
indeed, next to the Bowden Railway Station. Now, quite why
someone would want to live with the Governor Hindmarsh
on one side, Woodville railway on another and the fishmongers, Raptis Brothers, on the eastern side, is beyond me,
but I gather people are willing to buy these townhouses.
The anxiety of Brian and Richard Tonkin was that
residents would move into these townhouses and, under the
Liquor Licensing Act, those residents would be in a strong
position to complain about the noise emanating from the Gov
and perhaps be in a position for the Liquor Licensing
Commissioner to penalise the licensees, or even to close
down the live music.
So, the Tonkins felt that their licence was under threat
from the decision of the development assessment unit of the
Charles Sturt Council. I hasten to add that, as I understand it,
the development application did not even go to the planning
committee of the council, or to the full council: it was just
decided by the development assessment unit, the same unit
that made the decision to grant planning permission to the
Rebels motorcycle gang to build their headquarters on the
corner of
far away. Quite rightly, the Deputy Ombudsman was
concerned about the proceedings and methods of the Charles
Sturt Council’s development assessment unit, and I am
pleased to say that that unit has been reformed.
I understood the anxiety of the licensees of the Gov, but
I was also mindful that some people had lived in the immediate vicinity of the Gov for quite a long time. It is not true to
say that it is an entirely non-residential area. Mr Len Gregory
and Mrs Gregory, who are well known to me, live at number
2,
years I have been a member of parliament, they have made
no complaints about the live music.
The late Erwin Schwarz, too, used to live at the back of
the Gov, very close to the stationmaster’s building at Bowden
Railway Station, and he never made any complaints to me,
though I called at his home a couple of times. Indeed, the late
Mr Schwarz’s home was burnt down by squatters after his
death, and it was the bulldozing of his home that made way
for the townhouses to be built. So, that is my interest in the
matter as the local member of parliament.
The Tonkins mobilised other hotels that felt that they
might also be under threat from residential encroachment, and
so the Grace Emily and the
Wheatsheaf Hotel at Thebarton, joined in the campaign.
Ultimately, a rally was held at Parliament House, which I was
pleased to attend, along with the now Premier and the now
member for
Ms Ciccarello: And me.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And the member for
what was a pretty cold day.
I commend the Hon. Angus Redford for the work he has
done in getting this bill together, particularly his work
chairing the working group that looked at the difficulty. Since
the working group reported and the bill came into parliament
last year, someone has moved into one of the townhouses in
because they are anxious that that person not be able to use
the current Liquor Licensing Act to challenge live music at
the Gov. So, I am eager to expedite this bill. I am sure that
once it gets into another place, the Hon. Angus Redford and
the government will make sure it goes through swiftly.
Indeed, the bill should have passed this place on the last
sitting day last year. The opposition offered the then Liberal
government its support for expediting the bill and getting it
through before parliament rose and was prorogued before the
election and, for reasons best known to himself, the deputy
premier decided not to do that. So, it remains for us to get the
bill through parliament.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I
thank the member for Bragg for supporting the fourth Labor
government bill in a row, and I hope that her father is still
talking to her and that she will oppose the second reading of
one of our bills some day soon.
The member for Bragg made a close textual analysis of the
bill and I thank her for reading its provisions carefully,
including the Liquorland csae amendments that were added
to the bill. The member for Bragg, if I heard her correctly,
seemed to think that the definition of ‘premises’ in section 4
of the act was too inclusive. That definition provides:
‘premises’ includes—
(a) land;
(b) any building or structure on land;
(c) a public conveyance;
Wednesday 10 July 2002
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
(d) a part of premises;
In my view, that definition does not present any difficulties
in combination with the current amendments. If I heard her
correctly, the member for Bragg was thinking that people on
a passing ship might be able to complain about live music
emanating from a hotel. Well, I will take the member for
Bragg’s point seriously when the crew of a live sheep carrier
headed for
played in the Largs Pier Hotel. I do not think it is a serious
point but I commend the honourable member for reading the
bill carefully. The member for Bragg also asks why the word
‘history’ was included in clause 7 of the bill, which provides:
In hearing and determining a complaint under this section, the
commissioner or the court, as the case may be—
(b) must take into account—
(i)
the relevant history of the licensed premises in
relation to other premises in the vicinity and, in
particular, the period of time over which the activity,
noise or behaviour complained about has been
occurring and any significant change at any relevant
time in the level or frequency at which it has occurred;
I think that part of clause 7 is of the very essence of the bill.
It is what the bill is all about. I think that all sides of the
house believe that it would be unfair if new residents were
able to move into Mr Jurkovic’s townhouses and complain
about the noise of live music coming out of a hotel that has
had live music for many years. The Gov has been well
established in the area and it should not be prejudiced by
residential encroachment. I think that most members of the
house take the view that if you move into one of the townhouses in
find it, and members opposite are nodding in agreement. That
clause reflects, in legislation, the belief of the house about
this matter. The word ‘history’ was used in the working group
report. I refer to page 4 of the working group report, which
states:
provide that in determining a complaint the licensing authority:
(iii)
must make an objective assessment of whether any
offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience
alleged in support of the complaint is undue, having
regard to the nature of the locality in which the
licensed premises are situated, the nature of the
activity complained about, and the respective histories
of the licensed premises and the various premises in
the vicinity thereof;
This year the government has reflected in the bill what the
working group wanted. In the last version of the bill Parliamentary Counsel dropped out the reference to ‘history’ and
the Australian Hotels Association asked that it be reinserted
in the bill to make it accord with the intentions of the working
group. That is why, in answer to the question of the member
for Bragg, ‘history’ is back in the bill. ‘History’ has its
natural meaning—I do not think it needs to be defined in
section 4 of the parent act.
The member for Bragg asked how the commissioner or the
court will get to know about the history of the locality in
which the licensed premises are situated. The commissioner
or judge will not be required to make their own inquisition
into the history of the locality as it will be presented by the
parties, I would expect, in accordance with our adversarial
system of justice in
be adduced in the normal way. With those remarks, I thank
members from both sides for their contribution to the debate
and wish the bill a speedy passage both here and in the other
place. Once it has passed both houses the government will
take all reasonable steps to expedite Vice Regal assent and
proclamation.
Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining
stages.
